Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julian · 11-21-2005, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox_Freethinker

It's a good place to start in understanding the history surrounding the New Testament.

Peace.

Most people posting here in BC&H are familiar with all these facts and many more besides.

Julian

Orthodox_Freethinker · 11-21-2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

You are making claims here, provide the evidence. Not speculation, but evidence. You cannot change the fact that that is merely second century conjecture. Show that it isn't and I will gladly change my mind...

The evidence is in the early church fathers who provided testimony of their authorship and the fact that the oldest manuscripts contain the names of the authors. If the authorship of the Gospels were not of those attributed, someone would have voiced such an opinion.

Peace.

Julian · 11-21-2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox_Freethinker

The evidence is in the church fathers who provided testimony of their authorship and the fact that the oldest manuscripts contain the names of the authors. If the authorship of the Gospels were not of those attributed, someone would have voiced such an opinion.

Peace.

All of that is 2nd century. The church fathers were not in a position to know. We have no manuscripts from the first century and precious little from the second. Again, everything we have is far removed from the supposed events themselves.

Julian

Orthodox_Freethinker · 11-21-2005, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

All of that is 2nd century. The church fathers were not in a position to know.

Those who lived in the early second century would be in the position to know.

Peace.

Julian · 11-21-2005, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox_Freethinker

Those who lived in the early second century would be in the position to know.

Peace.

Why? How?

Orthodox_Freethinker · 11-21-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Why? How?

One mustn't forget the early church's reliance on oral tradition. There was no need to put into writing of who wrote the Gospels and when until they started to become widely circulated.
If no one disputed its authorship and if there were no reason to have dispute, it would not matter if the testimony of the fathers on the authorship of the Gospels was given sixty years after their authorship.
Given that no voice of dissent was raised on the authorship of the Gospels, it is reasonable to conclude that it was only common knowledge.

Peace.

Julian · 11-21-2005, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox_Freethinker

One mustn't forget the early church's reliance on oral tradition. There was no need to put into writing of who wrote the Gospels and when until they started to become widely circulated.

What oral tradition? Again, no evidence. You are forgetting that there wasn't one big, happy united church back then nor reliable and cheap means of communication. You are also forgetting that there were 20 gospels or so around and that they all claimed to be authentic. Just because the church later destroyed all the literature that didn't agree with the official version doesn't mean it didn't exist. Thank goodness for some unnamed monk who had the foresight to bury many volumes in a jar at Nag Hammadi or we would never have known what the church destroyed to bolster the false claims of their origins.

Quote:

If no one disputed its authorship and if there were no reason to have dispute, it would not matter if the testimony of the fathers on the authorship of the Gospels was given sixty years after their authorship.
Given that no voice of dissent was raised on the authorship of the Gospels, it is reasonable to conclude that it was only common knowledge.

Or that no one wanted to contradict it.

Or that no one had any evidence to contradict it.

Or that no one cared much until it became time to settle on a canon and by that time it was too late.

Remember, they didn't have the resources back then to do the kind of research we can do.

You have presented no evidence to support your position. I think it is time that you admit that the authorship of the gospels are 2nd century speculation and nothing more. Think about it, if Peter was the source of GMark then why is it so condemning towards him in particular and the disciples in general?

Surely, your faith can withstand the fact that we don't know who wrote the gospels? I mean, they could still be inspired by god, right?

Julian

pharoah · 11-21-2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox_Freethinker

The same conclusions can be found in many other sources given that it is the mainstream position of Biblical scholarship. Papias, for example, did not write in the late second century.

"About his date, which is important in connection with his credibility, there is Irenaeus' statement, later in the 2nd century, that Papias was "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias

From the same link that you provided:

Quote:

Yet Papias admits in one of the fragments of his treatise that he had in no way been a hearer or eye witness of the apostles themselves. He says he gathered material from those who were their followers:

"I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains."

Thus Papias reports he heard things that came from an unwritten, oral tradition of the Presbyters, a "sayings" or logia tradition that had been passed from Jesus to such of the apostles and disciples as he mentions in the fragmentary quote.

Another interesting tibdit from the article:

Quote:

About the origins of the Gospels, Papias (according to Eusebius) wrote this:

"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."

I've always found that passage about Mark not omitting anything that Peter told him to be peculiar. Why would Peter neglect to tell Mark about the Virgin Birth, the slaughter of the innocents, and the resurrection of the dead saints?

Orthodox_Freethinker · 11-21-2005, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

What oral tradition? Again, no evidence.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I think it is time that you admit that the authorship of the gospels are 2nd century speculation and nothing more.

Admit to something which is obviously false? Preposterous. Ultimately, what separates a canonical Gospel from a heretic gospel is whether or not it was actually written by either an Apostle or disciple of an Apostle.

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker · 11-21-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

Why would Peter neglect to tell Mark about the Virgin Birth, the slaughter of the innocents, and the resurrection of the dead saints?

That is what we'd expect from Mark if it were an abridged version of Matthew. Matthean priority was the consensus of the early Church and remained unchallenged until the 17th century with the emergence of naturalistic scholarship.

http://www.answers.com/topic/griesbach-hypothesis

Peace.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.